A comparison of the main methods for estimating probabilities of extreme still water levels
A comparison of the main methods for estimating probabilities of extreme still water levels
Sea-level return periods are estimated at 18 sites around the English Channel using: (i) the annual maxima method; (ii) the r-largest method; (iii) the joint probability method; and (iv) the revised joint probability method. Tests are undertaken to determine how sensitive these four methods are to three factors which may significantly influence the results; (a) the treatment of the long-term trends in extreme sea level; (b) the relative magnitudes of the tidal and non-tidal components of sea level; and (c) the frequency, length and completeness of the available data. Results show that unless sea-level records with lengths of at least 50 years are used, the way in which the long-term trends is handled in the different methods can lead to significant differences in the estimated return levels. The direct methods (i.e. methods i and ii) underestimate the long (> 20 years) period return levels when the astronomical tidal variations of sea level (relative to a mean of zero) are about twice that of the non-tidal variations. The performance of each of the four methods is assessed using prediction errors (the difference between the return periods of the observed maximum level at each site and the corresponding data range). Finally, return periods, estimated using the four methods, are compared with estimates from the spatial revised joint probability method along the UK south coast and are found to be significantly larger at most sites along this coast, due to the comparatively short records originally used to calibrate the model in this area. The revised joint probability method is found to have the lowest prediction errors at most sites analysed and this method is recommended for application wherever possible. However, no method can compensate for poor data.
838-849
Haigh, Ivan David
945ff20a-589c-47b7-b06f-61804367eb2d
Nicholls, Robert
4ce1e355-cc5d-4702-8124-820932c57076
Wells, Neil
4c27167c-f972-4822-9614-d6ca8d8223b5
September 2010
Haigh, Ivan David
945ff20a-589c-47b7-b06f-61804367eb2d
Nicholls, Robert
4ce1e355-cc5d-4702-8124-820932c57076
Wells, Neil
4c27167c-f972-4822-9614-d6ca8d8223b5
Haigh, Ivan David, Nicholls, Robert and Wells, Neil
(2010)
A comparison of the main methods for estimating probabilities of extreme still water levels.
Coastal Engineering, 57 (9), .
(doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2010.04.002).
Abstract
Sea-level return periods are estimated at 18 sites around the English Channel using: (i) the annual maxima method; (ii) the r-largest method; (iii) the joint probability method; and (iv) the revised joint probability method. Tests are undertaken to determine how sensitive these four methods are to three factors which may significantly influence the results; (a) the treatment of the long-term trends in extreme sea level; (b) the relative magnitudes of the tidal and non-tidal components of sea level; and (c) the frequency, length and completeness of the available data. Results show that unless sea-level records with lengths of at least 50 years are used, the way in which the long-term trends is handled in the different methods can lead to significant differences in the estimated return levels. The direct methods (i.e. methods i and ii) underestimate the long (> 20 years) period return levels when the astronomical tidal variations of sea level (relative to a mean of zero) are about twice that of the non-tidal variations. The performance of each of the four methods is assessed using prediction errors (the difference between the return periods of the observed maximum level at each site and the corresponding data range). Finally, return periods, estimated using the four methods, are compared with estimates from the spatial revised joint probability method along the UK south coast and are found to be significantly larger at most sites along this coast, due to the comparatively short records originally used to calibrate the model in this area. The revised joint probability method is found to have the lowest prediction errors at most sites analysed and this method is recommended for application wherever possible. However, no method can compensate for poor data.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: September 2010
Organisations:
Ocean and Earth Science, Civil Engineering & the Environment, Physical Oceanography, Coastal & Shelf Research
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 159955
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/159955
ISSN: 0378-3839
PURE UUID: 9f10786b-d80e-4d34-89f6-4b6c12b205f3
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 07 Jul 2010 15:02
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 02:51
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
